Have something to say?

Ready to be published? LXer is read by around 350,000 individuals each month, and is an excellent place for you to publish your ideas, thoughts, reviews, complaints, etc. Do you have something to say to the Linux community?

I'm not sure even that's true. Windows support for devices is often dropped after a few years. A number of devices which used to work with Windows 98 are no longer supported under Windows XP. Support is seldom dropped in Linux. It's possible that more devices are supported under Windows, but it's not certain.

Perhaps you could claim such a thing if you limited the discussion to strictly x86, and included the manufacturer support under "Windows supports", but I would want to see real numbers.

It is a trivial matter to list many devices which are supported by Linux, excluding any manufacturer's separate drivers, and which are totally unavailable to any Microsoft system, that the claim made in the title of this thread serves more as a reason to question the agenda of the claimant than the facts of Greg's presentation.

Linux indisputably supports more hardware architectures than any other OS, except maybe NetBSD which I know about only because it's apparently a small but chronic flamewar. I wish Greg K-H had expanded on that a bit.

"Saying that Linux has better hardware support than Windows is insane. Out of the box... maybe. In total, get real."

Out of box definitely! this is why linux is easier to install than windows - I can install and get to work and not have to download a thousand drivers from a thousand different sites - what do you really get with windows anyway?

that is the whole point - microsoft and oems constantly point fingers at each other when hardware doesn't work

if I buy good quality hardware that linux supports I have no problems - and I mean none - I rarely go to the local computer store anymore to buy their latest cheap software only hardware that you have to pitch in 2 years anyway.

with linux if you buy supported hardware which isn't hard to do anymore you get good quaility kernel modules that blow anything windows and oems can come up with and you know it will work and no pointing fingers.

I hope linux never supports the crap that is on sale for 19.99 at you local computer store - it is a waste of money - I still am using hardware I bought 6 or 7 years ago and it is still supported with linux and works great why get rid of it? because it's old? it works great and suits my needs. oh I know why so I can line the vendors like dell and microsoft pockets so they can all buy those yachts they have been wanting.

I also question that Linux supports more "devices". Architectures, yes, but look at all the wireless devices, printers, scanners, PDAs, modems, graphics tablets, game controllers, and miscellaneous detritus that require windoze.

What's odd here is that, when it comes to device drivers, Windows more or less inverts the whole Cathedral vs. Bazaar story.

Windows doesn't really support much of anything, driver-wise, but lots of drivers support Windows (and, grrr, only Windows).

For an outfit that thrives on monopoly, they've sure hit upon a free-market approach to drivers. Loosen up that central control -- set some standards, offer to certify, etc -- and let the distributed resources of vendors handle the driver task.

MS Windows supports barely enough to boot. There are lots of hardware manufacturers who pay to put that logo on their boxes, and include a driver disk.

This makes it all the more amazing that Linux supports such a huge number of PC-only devices without having to bother with those driver disks. Most people can simply boot and go.

The list of devices that Linux doesn't support out of the box would be much easier to catalog than the list of devices that simply work.

Even reframing the ludicrous assertion that began this thread to only include x86 devices would still leave the assertion completely false.

However, the selling of MS Windows on such myths continues. The trouble is that all the damaging baggage of MS gets sold along with the myths, and we get clueless legislators trying to eliminate spam and spyware and bot-nets by giving more control to Bill and Hollywood. Keep on selling the myths and lies for them, and we will have the "safe" Internet that is currently being discussed. It will be "safe" because the proposals render it only slightly more interactive than a television.

It's a bit weird to see a Free Software supporter so quickly come out and post a first comment to this great story in a way which seems to want to dispute that story. What's your point sbergman27 really?

What grouch stated in an article is still completely correct. Linux does support more hardware *out of the box*. EVEN if Windows supports more of the popular hardware in general, it's not always out of the box and you need to install 3rd party drivers to get it working..

But again, what the heck is the point of asserting this anyway? Especially considering how weak the statement actually is...

A friend of mine bought a Sony Vaio P4 2.8GHz nice box. Came with XP and some cute apps.

Well, his opinion of XP is pretty much the same as mine, so he wiped it after getting his fill of the packaged games (about 5 days) and installed Win2k Pro on it.

No drivers. Lousy graphics. No sound. Yuck. No success in hardware detection, Win2k game him _squat_ in terms of information to solve the problem. The only recourse was "contact the manufacturer to get drivers".

So I went to his house with a KNOPPIX disk, booted (of course), and used KControl hardware listings to learn the make/model/version of all the particular hardware on the box that Win2K couldn't deal with.

_Then_ it was possible to go to the manufacturers and download the right drivers.

I forgive him, he's employed working with heavy MS database and such crud, so there's not much chance of him using anything else.

However, when I mentioned with glee that Deban Unstable had passed 19,000 packages a couple days ago, he replied "It's confusion like that that keeps Linux marginal. People don't want choice, they want it to work."

Maybe being in Microsoft Land for so long has finally burned out his brain...

> It's a bit weird to see a Free Software supporter so quickly come out and post a first comment to this great story in a way which seems to want to dispute that story. What's your point sbergman27 really?

That Windows device support is broader than Linux's?

No, you'd never buy that.

It would be much easier to say that I'm getting paid $100 a post to astroturf Linux sites. You'd buy that in a minute.

Who's delusional? At $100/post I could quit my job which requires me to run XP all day! ;-}

Seriously, I wasn't attacking anyone, Steve included. I agree that he has a point. As long as Windows has ~95% market share that point will continue to be valid. But let's not make the mistake of crediting Microsoft with being quick to develop drivers. Drivers for the new stuff are developed by the manufacturers who want a piece of the ~95%. Linux has ~3% of the desktop, so the manufacturers have no interest in us.

And before you jump on me for the ~95% / ~3% thing - yes, I know those numbers can easily be disputed. But the fact is, those are the numbers that the manufacturers use to make their decisions.

I should hope nobody here credits Microsoft with developing those drivers. Their model very specivically dumps that responsibility on the hardware vendors. that's why you see so many vanilla parts from Taiwanese makers packing up the generic driver from the chipset maker. Little guys don't have R&D budgets for that kind of thing.

I can't say that my experience with Windows drivers has been any better than with Linux. Anyone who hasn't had just as many problems with Windows, hasn't worked with it very long.

I still remember getting my new spiffy Logitech mouse for w2k and finding that Logitech hadn't released a driver for it... Waited 6 months for that one. Video Drivers are better in Windows, 'when the work', and I have some memorable tales about times that they didn't...

My Lexmark printer worked under Windows, but the driver was so invasive that sometimes you almost wished it wouldn't, and it didn't under Linux; 6 months till Lexmark released a Linux driver, but when it worked, it worked well..

The list goes on...

One thing about Linux is that the drivers for nearly every device have gotten a lot better in the time that I've been using Linux exclusively. Developers tend to listen. I'm not sure I can say that about Windows, and Windows vendors. Because MS depends on the vendors, the results can be pretty spotty.

It would be much easier to say that I'm getting paid $100 a post to astroturf Linux sites. You'd buy that in a minute.

That's what you say, not me. In all honesty that's not even near what I had in mind as the reason behind your post. Why would you even try to frame it that way?

I am not arguing against expressing valid criticism even on a GNU/Linux news site, but wouldn't you agree that it can be a bit odd that you, as a Free Software GNU/Linux advocate, actually try to persuade mostly GNU/Linux crowd on a GNU/Linux site to a not-so-strong point in favor of Windows?

It would be fine if you stated a valid critique regarding GNU/Linux, but as was confirmed later in this thread, what you basically say doesn't exactly hold and the truth is a little bit different and a little bit more in favor of GNU/Linux.

It would basically say that if GNU/Linux had the 90% market share it would be lightyears ahead of what Windows with the same market share today is. Not only that it would support virtually all hardware, but it would support it out of the box (no 3rd party installations needed).

That said I think it's fair to say that we can hardly count hardware support among the major winning points for Windows. Is it even worth mentioning then? Doesn't that only end up spreading certain myths about Windows, as grouch said?

As a GNU/Linux advocate, don't you have more important points to make than this?

> As a GNU/Linux advocate, don't you have more important points to make than this?

You might think so, until you read this:

>I think it's fair to say that we can hardly count hardware support among the major winning points for Windows.

That's precisely the kind of mindset that needs to be fought vigorously if you are serious about being a Linux advocate, ie, actually helping Linux and free software to grow and affect new people who not previously considered it.

Linux hardware support is a marvelous thing. Incredible, in fact. Once something works with Linux, it seems like it will always work. That's not true of Windows and it's not true of Mac.

But, we need to be careful of falling into the trap of framing the argument to our own advantage -- ie, being so impressed with the roses that we don't notice everybody's buying tulips.

Consumers with the latest version of consumer level Windows can go into the computer/electronics store and confidently buy just about anything there.

Won't always work, but there is good reason to be confident.

Pretending otherwise is not advocacy, it's foolishness. I may not have gotten much out of my brief law career, but I did learn one thing: you must know the other guy's case as well as you know yours. You must know where you are weak and where he is strong -- and you must do that from the proper perspective: in a lawyer's case, the jury. From a Free software advocate, Windows users.

The idea of Windows driver convenience kinda falls apart the first time you have to do a reinstall and one or more of the OEM disks are lost or munged. Then you're in for a lengthy stay at driverguide-dot-com, and you HOPE someone posted the right set of drivers for your hardware. If not... My kid just set up his Windows box to dual-boot MEPIS so he gets SOME use out of his SoundBlaster Live! card, because, six months and a lot of effort later, win98 is still silent in the absence of the original install CD. Linux found it, set it up and made it work just fine, of course.

My post directed at you was no doubt a bit unfair. The thing is, all this clever "we support more hardware" tripe looks a bit different in the cold light of day, with the client, who has found a great deal on a multi-function printer/copier/scanner at CompUSA, looking over your shoulder as you try to make it work, and noting that he's getting charged by the hour.

Alright, fair enough. Linux supports more hardware out of the box, as grouch stated. That in itself is still correct. But Windows, still being dominantly used operating system, is more supported by hardware vendors themselves. So even though users are required to put in a CD to install those drivers, the CDs are polished looking with an official manufacturer logos on them, coming with the device, and users are expecting it to be that way and seem happy with it.

So I guess what we face is not the fact that Windows supports more hardware per se, but that more manufacturers visibly support Windows. And we face a mentality and habit of windows users expecting a nice installable CD to come with the device rather than for the device to just work out of the box, however strange that may sound.

Did I get it right? :P

If that is so, at least in this case it shouldn't be hard to convince users that, even though they don't get too see that confidence inspiring Linux logo on a manufacturers CD, it is still better because the CD isn't even needed. It just works without it, with or without visible support by the manufacturer (as demonstrated by those driver CDs).

You can click on a function like "Volume up" and then hit the appropriate doodad on the keyboard and it just works. Provides hours of cheap thrills. I even settled for an inferior keyboard that had those doodads for a month just to play with it. Until I decided I liked the regular keys better.

I imagine there is an app under KDE in your Suse that does the same thing. It probably starts with a "K".

Well, the Gnome facility is not perfect. On the keyboard I was using, there were a couple of keys that didn't really have a function to map to. I'm sure that Windows must have that function available.

But it is pretty neat to be able to just hit that envelope button and have the email client pop up. I found myself jabbing it with a bit more more satisfaction than would be understood by the average Windows user.

It would still be false, just as your assertion in the title of the thread is false. Even if you modified your statement to "Considering only the devices which MS Windows supports out of the box, MS Windows supports more devices out of the box than Linux", it would still be false.

sbergman27: >"Getting a bit more difficult?"

No, just getting more and more ludicrous. Your assertion in the title of the thread is still utterly false.

sbergman27: >"How about "Supports more hardware that the people you might run into and hand a PCLinuxOS CD to might have?""

I have never installed PCLinuxOS. Why not pick tomsrtbt? You might have an easier time trying to find some device that it doesn't support but which some specific version of MS Windows does.

How about you stick to the false claim in the title of the thread?

sbergman27: >"Saying that Linux has better hardware support than Windows is insane. Out of the box... maybe. In total, get real."

Oh, so it has again morphed from "And Windows supports more devices, period." to something much more limited.

MS Windows supports hardly anything, "out of the box" or after applying multiple patches and "SP"s.

Hardware manufacturers try to get their hardware to work on MS Windows because of the monopoly status. This leads to a pile of drivers that cannot be coordinated, that duplicate functions, that bloat the entire system, that interact in unknown and unknowable ways, that clash with each other, that corrupt or even eliminate .dll files, and that leave the user without recourse but to reinstall and pray the train wreck comes together the next time in a more usable way.

To refresh your memory, which may have been confused by all the morphing of the argument,

Quoting:
Linux supports more devices, "out of the box", than any other operating system ever has.'

"Yes, that's right, we support more things than anyone else. And more than anyone else ever has in the past. Linux has a very long list of things that we have supported before anyone else ever did."
-- Greg Kroah-Hartman, OLS 2006 Keynote

dinotrac: >">However, the selling of MS Windows on such myths continues.

What myth is that?"

The myth that "And Windows supports more devices, period." It does not. It does not support many devices at all.

dinotrac: >"Aside from the inconvenience of having to download a driver or get it from a driver disk, the ordinary user doesn't much care if Windows is supporting drivers or the drivers are supporting Windows."

This is because the ordinary user has been convinced that the MS way is the only way, or that any way except the MS way is dangerous.

The drivers are not supporting MS Windows. The manufacturers either pay MS for the privilege of the logo or they go play in that part of the PC market not under the monopoly. The manufacturers are left not quite as isolated in their efforts as the users.

All those independently developed drivers get shoved into the system by manufacturers who have little access to the system's code, and almost no access to each other's code, to produce a system that is infamous for the problems it creates for users.

dinotrac: >"Perhaps if we put it this way:

There is a ton of device support available for Windows on X86."

It is a fair statement, but it is nothing like "And Windows supports more devices, period." It also is nothing like the quote from Kroah-Hartman's presentation that I used, which apparently sparked the falsely titled thread.

While the statement you make is fair, it does not reveal the many problems associated with the way that "ton of device support" is made available to MS Windows.

There are a lot of fire exinguishers available for Ford Pinto owners. That's also a fair statement, but it doesn't address the fact that the manufacturer made unwise decisions in making a car that readily explodes and burns when hit in the rear end by another car.

By Linux support[ing] more devices, "out of the box", than any other operating system ever has', the user has much greater assurance that this multitude of device drivers is a coordinated effort. That effort leads to an operating system that is famous for its stability, to give just one example. It produces a system with less duplicative code. It really shouldn't require consulting an engineer to figure out that a system with fewer parts has fewer opportunities to fail.

Two drivers with mostly the same code can be merged, if those drivers are handled within the operating system rather than tacked on by two hardware manufacturers who have no incentive to 'play nice' with each other.

> My kid just set up his Windows box to dual-boot MEPIS so he gets SOME use out of his SoundBlaster Live! card, because, six months and a lot of effort later, win98 is still silent in the absence of the original install CD.

One shouldn't really expect to make false statements without being asked to back them up. You falsely claim "And Windows supports more devices, period", in apparent response to the partial quote, 'Linux supports more devices, "out of the box", than any other operating system ever has.'

dinotrac: >"Steve has a point. It serves no good to get delusional.
By Hook or by Crook, Windows supports things that Linux doesn't, or doesn't fully support."

MS Windows does not support those things. Manufacturers do, with little to no coordination. They pay to be able to stick the MS Windows logo on their boxes. That logo does not make the various drivers work well together.

It's not a "Windows driver"; it's a manufacturer's driver. While it may be argued that it's a good thing that MS doesn't write the drivers, based on the poor quality of MS's code, it is still a bad thing for every manufacturer to produce a driver to be inserted into the operating system and alter the system as that manfacturer sees fit.

Calling it a "Windows driver" perpetuates the MS Windows myth that MS Windows supports a lot of hardware. MS does not support a lot of hardware.

Support for devices is not dependent on Microsoft. Implying that it is helps to perpetuate the belief that people need Microsoft for computing.

Linux supports more devices than MS Windows. Manufacturers are free to support "the latest and greatest toys" for Linux, but, even if they don't, it is almost a sure bet that the support by Linux will be there, shortly, unless there are legal barricades erected by the manufacturer.

sbergman27: >"My post directed at you was no doubt a bit unfair. The thing is, all this clever "we support more hardware" tripe looks a bit different in the cold light of day, with the client, [...]"

I don't know where you got the quote you use, "we support more hardware", but if the "we" is Linux and the Linux kernel developers, and if the "more" is making a comparison to the hardware supported by MS, then it is a true statement, not "tripe".

I see nothing that provides any factual basis for disputing, 'Linux supports more devices, "out of the box", than any other operating system ever has.'

sbergman27: >"[...] with the client, who has found a great deal on a multi-function printer/copier/scanner at CompUSA, looking over your shoulder as you try to make it work, and noting that he's getting charged by the hour."

That doesn't look like such a great deal, if your client is paying you for failing to advise the client about incompatibilities, regardless of what operating system is in use. Perhaps this is a hypothetical situation created to explain why the false statement, "And Windows supports more devices, period." was used to title this thread.

There are devices which Linux does not support. It would be just as ludicrous and just as false to claim otherwise as it is ludicrous and false to claim, "And Windows supports more devices, period."

Most devices that most people use with their computers are supported by Linux. This support is not the uncoordinated, instability-producing, haphazard support that is provided, ad hoc, to users of MS Windows.

The support users obtain from manufacturers of devices cannot be attributed to Microsoft Windows. Those drivers, from the many device manufacturers, alter the MS Windows operating system, including the "registry", with no assurance by MS or the individual device manufacturers that such alteration is not destabilizing.

The result of this almost complete non-support by MS Windows is that users must expect to have to reinstall the operating system and reinstall each driver for all the devices that MS Windows does not support, which is most, far too often.

MS Windows does not support much hardware, at all. MS Windows supports Microsoft. Device manufacturers support their own devices.

Linux supports a great deal of hardware, with or without the manufacturer's assistance. Booting a GNU/Linux distribution, for most users and most hardware, is all that is required for support. The number of devices that Linux supports continues to grow, even though it already 'supports more devices, "out of the box", than any other operating system ever has.'

>>" Oh, so it has again morphed from "And Windows supports more devices, period." to something much more limited."

sbergman27: >"Yes."

The title that you created for this thread is a false claim. Changing the argument within the thread does not change that falsehood nor alleviate the damage from that falsehood. You help perpetuate that false belief.

Microsoft Windows does not support more devices than Linux. Hardware manufacturers support their own devices under MS Windows, in an uncoordinated way which leads to problems for users.

You have provided no facts to challenge the quote, 'Linux supports more devices, "out of the box", than any other operating system ever has.'

You have provided only vague anecdotes to imply that there is some serious lack of device support for would-be Linux users, versus MS Windows users.

Device support by Linux, regardless of whether the device manufacturer provides support, is so good that most "consumers" need only get a recent, major distribution of GNU/Linux and boot it. Some so-called winmodems are unsupported, as well as some printers. Each major distribution provides a hardware compatibility database with which to check, if needed.

>>"Calling it a "Windows driver" perpetuates the MS Windows myth that MS Windows supports a lot of hardware."

dinotrac: >"Grouch, I think you're being stubborn for the sake of being stubborn."

No. The thread begins with a false claim. That false claim is also misleading in its implications, and is followed by further misleading information within this thread.

dinotrac:>"Failing to call them WIndows drivers is silly. Try using them on a Mac or a Mainframe or Solaris or (with the exception of some sleeved drivers) Linux. They won't work. They are Windows drivers."

They don't come with MS Windows; they don't originate with MS. Try booting a fresh CD of MS Windows, with the typical "consumer" mix of hardware, and see how many things MS Windows does NOT support, out of the box.

>>MS does not support a lot of hardware.

dinotrac: >"Who said they do?
I never called them Microsoft drivers. I called them Windows drivers."

Talk about splitting hairs! Does anyone else make MS Windows?

dinotrac: >"Most Windows software is written by someone other than Microsoft.
That extends to drivers, too."

Then these are not "Windows drivers", because only Microsoft owns MS Windows. This is what makes that false claim beginning this thread so offensive. It implies support and dependency that is not there, and implies a disadvantage in Linux that is not there.

dinotrac: >"Different model from Linux. Has pros, has cons. It does have the singular benefit of having the folks with the greatest incentive (or who should have the greatest incentive) write the driver."

The claim that "And Windows supports more devices, period." is false. The implication of a dependency on MS Windows for a good computing "experience" is false. The implication of a dependency on MS for device support is false.

The difference in "models" is what leads to the infamous problems with MS Windows and the famous advantages of GNU/Linux.

dinotrac: >"After all, if you product works like a pile of crap because of a lousy driver, your business will suffer."

You mean, like Microsoft? There are more influences on the success or failure of a business than the quality of a driver.

That model of placing the responsibility for the alterations to the operating system, after the user installs the operating system, onto the device manufacturer is what leads to driver conflicts, bloated systems, instability, unexplained corruption, and the need to reboot, reinstall, wait for the next version.

Take almost any recent, major GNU/Linux distribution and boot almost any combination of commodity equipment and it most likely will just work. (Configuration may be required, regardless of operating system). The device support will be a part of the operating system. It will not something left for a multitude of manufacturers to tack onto the system, without sufficient knowledge of the other devices and the system itself, which is the way it is done with MS Windows.

sbergman27: >"It may very well be that my original subject line was technically incorrect. Flawed, if you will."

It was and is false. It implies much that is also false.

sbergman27: >"The printer is still not printing, though."

I'm sorry about your trouble. I had never heard of that brand until your comment, which also means I've never seen one in the stores you mentioned earlier as being representative of where consumers buy products that you implied might not work with Linux but would work with MS Windows. Maybe it's a configuration problem.

Most laser printers I have encountered understand Postscript and work just fine with Linux.

Most inkjet and even dot matrix printers that I've encountered, just work with Linux. Exceptions are certain Lexmark and Brother printers.

"It is a trivial matter to list many devices which are supported by Linux, excluding any manufacturer's separate drivers, and which are totally unavailable to any Microsoft system, that the claim made in the title of this thread serves more as a reason to question the agenda of the claimant than the facts of Greg's presentation."

I suspect that you reacted emotionally when creating this thread, just as I reacted from emotion with the above.

It was wrong to imply that you have an "agenda" as the basis for starting this thread and I apologize for making that implication. That was wrong, regardless of the truth or falsehood of the thread title, and unsupportable.

dinotrac: >"[...] But look at the qualifier you put in that sentence: "commodity".
Commodity hardware is no problem -mostly."

I put the qualifier in there because there is no way that MS Windows could begin to compare to the device support in Linux for non-commodity hardware. I deliberately excluded a mountain of devices that most people will not encounter.

dinotrac: >"Look how long it took to get decent wi-fi support.
Look at video cards not fully supported.
Even my sound card isn't fully supported."

I note your use of the word "took" -- past tense. I also note your use of the qualifier "fully".

Are there problems with specific devices? Absolutely. Are those problems and specific devices wide-spread? This is what is implied but there is no support for the implication.

Are those devices "fully supported" by MS Windows, out of the box? Will the average user have to track down drivers from the manufacturers? Will those drivers, not already in MS Windows when the user gets it, clash with each other or with older versions? How much aggravation do users go through trying to get the hodge-podge of "latest drivers" from manufacturers to work properly?

dinotrac: >"Those are things that people use."

Boot any recent, major distribution of GNU/Linux and most things that people use will just work. I have experienced this first hand as well as reading such reports scattered across the Internet, in news and personal accounts.

There have been no facts presented in this thread to dispute the quote, Linux supports more devices, "out of the box", than any other operating system ever has.'

There have been no facts presented in this thread to support the false claim in the title of the thread.

Over and over, in this thread, it has been implied that there is a serious lack of device support in Linux for the hardware that is available for PCs that people use. There have been no facts presented to support that implication or claim.

I have provided links to various places to obtain distributions of GNU/Linux, in the article. Many of those distributions are available as LiveCDs, which the average computer user can certainly boot to discover if there are any problems with their particular combination of hardware.

I am extremely saddened by the determined, strong discouragement of new users that this thread represents. It is filled with innuendo and pure FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) that should have been laid to rest years ago. It's like the 2.6.x kernel never happened. It's like Knoppix, Kanotix, Ubuntu, DSL, Slax and a whole host of LiveCD distributions never happened. It's like Xandros and Linspire are not even options from which to choose.

This entire thread, from title to now, simply reinforces the presentation by Greg Kroah-Hartman, "Myths, Lies and Truths about the Linux kernel". He places his code right alongside all the other kernel developers for the world to examine to satisfy itself as to the veracity of his claims.

The distributors of GNU/Linux do the same, with the only exceptions being the small, closed parts that are licensed (in Linspire and Xandros, for example) from 3rd parties. The distributions are available for the average computer user to try out on their own, no thanks to the dire, unsupported, implied and explicit warnings against such trials that have appeared in this thread.

I hope new users read beyond the lead quote in the article and actually give at least one of the many wonderful distributions of GNU/Linux a try.

I suspect any who see this dark and dreary mess at the end of the article will simply retreat, thinking everything in Linux is the same as it was when MS XP was released, 5 years ago. I'm glad I never received such unsupportable messages of despair and probable doom when I first tried Linux. I would have missed out on the great relief from 'winfear' that Linux provides.

As PJ, of Groklaw, put it:

Quoting:
PJ: Very high. I loved using GNU/Linux, just simply loved it. I feel like I can breathe when I am using it, and it's not a feeling I ever have with closed source software. I know, or can verify, that no one is secretly making my computer phone home or recording my hard drive number or making my machine a zombie or whatever.

I can see whatever I want to and can do whatever I want to, without any restrictions as a user. It's just a wonderful feeling of freedom. So when I thought SCO might ruin all of that, I definitely wanted to help, to contribute back according to my skills. That's how the community works. You donate what you can. Groklaw's SCO coverage is my contribution, my thank you.

I defy any of you to provide a credible claim that she's some kind of computer guru.

Well, the 2D does. And the 2D performance is about 1/3rd that of NVidia's drivers. (Sad, because we've had the specs for the 2D engine for years.)

But machines today are fast enough that 1/3rd the performance is, perhaps, not noticeable... except to the people out there who note that Linux is kinda slow. Usually X takes the blame for that, though.

I haven't tested ATI.

And Palm devices? Sorry, I'm not nearly well organized enough to care about that one.

As for your "palm", oh, yes, everyone should certainly stick to viruses, spyware, MS EULA and DRM because of a 4k file size limit on memos on a Palm, and, of course, everyone has such a thing and everyone knows that it would prevent booting a computer, just by being in the same country with the computer.

Regarding the Turtle Beach Santa Cruz smart jack, I'd say that's reaching about as far as the 4k Palm, since the last question anyone had about it on LinuxQuestions.org was in September, 2004. Must be because it's so common.

dino: Not their nVidia or ATI graphics cards.
Not palm devices with memos > 4k.
Not the smart jack in Santa Cruz sound cards.

I would add Winmodems to that list. I have a GNU/Linux laptop that has a winmodem in it. I was going to loan it to a friend while his EXPEE computer was in for repair. Unfortunately, he only has dialup so that didn't work.

*Most* things will work. A very few will not. This is grouch's contention. For the most part I agree. The problem is if great numbers of computers are shipped with hardware configurations that, under GNU/Linux, will not work, work only partially or work only with binary blobs. For any user to sort that out is frustrating. A non-tech fearful new user will probably not want to continue with the experience.

So, in summary, it's perfectly alright to lie, so long as you're doing it to keep people using MS Windows. You must always give dire warnings, but never with good, solid facts, to keep people within the Microsoft cage. No number of success stories or kids installing Linux or grandmothers using it is sufficient to overcome the ominous, only hinted at, dark and dangerous troubles that mythical users might encounter if they dare to try to boot Linux.

>So, in summary, it's perfectly alright to lie, so long as you're doing it to keep people using MS Windows.

But no, as I said before:

> People will actually do more than we give them credit for if it's reasonable to do and they understand why. They are far less forgiving if you are not straight with them.

Lying is about the worst thing you can do, because, at some point, such as somebody discovering their stuffr won't work they way they paid for and expect it to, you will be caught. Once caught in a lie, your credibility is shot.

Much better to be straight about expectations, to offer suggestions, alternatives, etc.

That last one doesn't bother me a bit, but you seem hung up on "out of the box" so I throw it in.

If your standard is that the machine boots, fine.
Most people who buy equipment, however, want and expect it to work, and to work fully.

You are welcome to your obstinate delusions. They serve no purpose, however, but to make you less effective as an advocate.

People will actually do more than we give them credit for if it's reasonable to do and they understand why. They are far less forgiving if you are not straight with them.

The bottom line for people out in the real world: Will my stuff work or not?"
---snip---

Windows does not support these devices "out of the box" either, so what's your point? To get your sound, video, palm, printer, etc, working under Windows, you need that MANUFACTURER to support that device, NOT Windows.

As it has been said many times, Microsoft/Windows DOES NOT SUPPORT these devices, the people who MAKE THE DEVICES are the ones who SUPPORT them, and what OS they decide to write their drivers for are not a function of which is easier to support, or which is better, but rather a function of which is more profitable. Since Windows holds a 95% monopoly share of the desktop market, most device manufacturers choose to write their code for Windows. This is not something Linux developers have control over nor is it appropriate to assume or to assert that they are some how responsible for forcing manufacturers to provide such support.

Linux, out of the box, provides an IMMENSE amount of device support, far outweighing that of Windows. Most devices in Linux work out of the box without ever needing to download a driver or pop in a CD.

No-one here is denying that more manufacturers support Linux. However, as this is a handicap for Linux, it is not one that is unreasonable. Why is it so unreasonable to expect a user to verify a device works with whatever system they have? If you own a Mac, you make sure it's supported on MacOS before you buy it, if you have Windows, you make sure it will work on Windows. I don't understand why we have people who blindly make a purchase for devices, plug them into their Linux box, and are then shocked and dismayed when it doesn't work. Did you CHECK first?

- On my system, wifi works "out of the box", because I bought a wifi card that Linux supports.
- 3D graphics on my ATI card works out of the box, again, because I checked. Nope, I'm not using the proprietary drivers, the open source drivers support the ATI Radeon 9200 series of cards, which was a cheap card that performs well for the games I play.
- Sound works out of the box
- My gigabit ethernet works out of the box

This exact same system, running Windows, would need a driver for each of these devices to be supplied seperately, and there is no warranty that one device driver may not interfere with another. Each driver inserts code into the Windows kernel, which is a very sacred place for any OS. Bugs at the kernel level are generally not trappable, not recoverable, and often result in data loss. This is not a place where I would think that you would want to trust some vendor to just hand you some binary driver with no source code to audit to just insert into your OS kernel and 'hope for the best'.

Or maybe you do, but I prefer the Linux way.

Bottom line is that Linux supports WAY more devices out of the box. More manufacturers 'support' Windows, but how many of them are going to give you the source code to their Windows drivers so you can verify their security, and/or fix bugs/security holes in them in the event that the manufacturer fails to do so in a timely manner? That's what I thought.

>>So, in summary, it's perfectly alright to lie, so long as you're doing it to keep people using MS Windows."

I did not want to comment again, but this needs to be cleared up: That was not directed at any person who has commented in this thread. No accusation of lying by any person who has commented in this thread was intended by that statement.

Thank you for bringing that ambiguity to my attention, dinotrac. If I ever feel the need to accuse anyone of lying, I'll name names and make sure they know mine and where to reach me.

That comment was referring to the long-running FUD campaigns of Microsoft, which has resulted in some of the myths and lies referred to in Kroah-Hartman's presentation. A number of their deliberate deceptions, a.k.a. lies, have been documented in court cases.

It's ironic that this thread mentions printing. I hope most people here realize it was "plug-n-play" printers designed for Windows that created so much headached that I switched to GNU/Linux. In fact, I have known numerous people to complain about printing under Windows. I know one guy who has a perpetual problem with printers and scanners under Windows. Printing may just be the number one hardware complaint I know of where Windows is concerned.

On the other hand, as long as you're not talking about a Lexmark (and maybe a few other manufacturers), chances are, you'll find pretty darned good support under GNU/Linux. Granted, my experience with printers is fairly limited - I cannot just run out and buy new printers every six months. Still, getting printers to work under Windows has long been a sore spot for many users. Maybe it has improved some, but I honestly don't know.

>Always look for the magic word "Postscript" in the description. You'll be rewarded with easy setup, fast and reliable printing, whiter teeth, and fresh breath.

Under which system? That was not part of the Windows setup routine for my HP printer. That required a special dance by a medicine man from a particular indian tribe on a set day of the month. Iirc, I had to plug in the printer to the wall, then pop in the driver CD, then plug the usb cable into the printer and the computer, then wait for the dialog box to pop up and follow the steps from there. And the lucky rabbit's foot has to be in the right hip pocket, not the left front pocket. Plus I had to hold my tongue just so.

Literally, the instructions said to follow the setup routine e-x-a-c-t-l-y. The problem was that, if you did goof, you were up the creek without a paddle. When I got WinXP, I followed the same routine, fearing I would never be able to fix the driver problem if it occurred again. From what NoDough told me, I would have to be an expert on the Windows registry just to find the particular entry that needed to be dealt with.

All I know is that I refuse to consider Windows as somehow more user-friendly, or providing better hardware support than GNU/Linux, simply because people are used to certain applications or because a few devices might have better support, or seem easier to configure. My experience shows the opposite to be true.

> it was "plug-n-play" printers designed for Windows that created so much headache that I switched to GNU/Linux.

I've got to point out that Windows "plug-n-play" with any hardware is hardly flawless, and in fact can become a major pita. I've seen it go into an endless loop and want to reinstall the device ever time you reboot... More like 'plug and plug'. That's one reason why I'm very leery when I see Linux try to emulate that. Better some times to do it manually.

I thought you were referring to GNU/Linux, but wasn't sure since I had questioned whether printer support in Windows had improved any in the last few years. As for insulting you some more, don't make me whip out my Ballmer & McBride remarks. ;-)

jimf:
> Even Lexmark usb has support under Linux. Now you only got to deal with lousy QC and of course the ink pig syndrome.

Yeah, but I still had problems with a Lexmark donated to our ministry. It might be supported now - I should try again. I just find their bottom page margin (0.78 or something) aggravating as I don't know what.

Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]